Ten federal judges complained about the Supreme Court's rulings that cut in favor of President Donald Trump and overturned lower courts' rulings, Fox News reported. The judges, who chose to remain anonymous, were part of a 12-member panel that included both Democratic and Republican appointees.
The judges spoke with NBC News about the spate of rulings that overturn lower courts' decisions when they get to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and many attempts to block Trump's agenda have been thwarted once the decision works its way up to Washington, D.C.
These decisions come in the form of emergency rulings, which were previously rare but have become more common as judges repeatedly attempt to undermine the president's agenda. The judges who were asked about this trend stated that they believe it's a criticism of the lower courts and demonstrates disloyalty to their authority.
"It is inexcusable. They don’t have our backs," one of the judges interviewed said of the Supreme Court. However, the president sees it differently, as he has repeatedly warned that federal judges are intentionally chipping away at his agenda with their rulings, rather than examining the laws.
The judges believe that Trump's outspoken criticism of their conduct has led to a dangerous situation. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller indeed stated that rulings blocking Trump's tariffs amounted to a "judicial coup," and the president has repeatedly criticized the judiciary for what he believes is bias against him.
Still, the ominous predictions some made about Trump's habit of freely criticizing them are out of proportion. One judge said that "somebody is going to die" because the Supreme Court has decided to overturn the lower courts' rulings, while another judge claimed they were being "thrown under the bus" by the high court.
"It's almost like the Supreme Court is saying it is a 'judicial coup,'" yet another judge chimed in. Despite these criticisms from the three judges, a fourth, who was an Obama appointee, acknowledged that some of what Trump has said about the lower courts' agenda-driven decisions has merit.
"The whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane," the judge said.
"Certainly, there is a strong sense in the judiciary among the judges ruling on these cases that the court is leaving them out to dry. They are partially right to feel the way they feel," the fourth judge conceded. Nevertheless, Trump has a point about how the courts are being used against him.
The president believes his agenda has been unfairly attacked using litigation, and it's no secret that his opponents have intentionally filed lawsuits where the court overseeing the matter would reliably rule against him. According to the Washington Examiner, legal experts say it's a practice Democrats and Republicans employ, but it has gone into overdrive during Trump's presidency.
"Many of these lawsuits are being filed in places like California, Washington State, New York, Boston, other courts around the country where I suspect litigants are more likely to get a favorable with those challenging these policies, expect to get a more favorable judge who might be more inclined to rule in their favor," said Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage foundation and former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Florida. The court will then issue injunctions that apply nationwide, a practice which was halted by the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Trump v. CASA.
During a news briefing in May, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained the extent of the problem. "Nationwide injunctions ordered against the first Trump administration, Trump 1.0, account for more than half of the injunctions issued in this country since 1963. And President Trump had more injunctions in one full month of office, in February, than Joe Biden had in three years," she pointed out at the time. The courts even "prohibited the Trump administration from eliminating federal funding for child transgender surgery and mutilation, a practice that the American people overwhelmingly reject."
The Supreme Court is meant to be a stopgap against rogue judges, and it appears that's precisely what it has been doing. The federal judges who were asked about this practice are incensed about being overruled by the high court because they have been caught in the act and stopped from carrying out this cynical mission. Even if they don't like it, this is precisely how the judiciary is supposed to work.
In a bold legislative initiative, U.S. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie, alongside Democrat Ro Khanna, have declared their intention to disclose the names of individuals linked to Jeffrey Epstein should a new bill mandating the release of related files pass, as the Daily Mail reports
The proposed bill, which seeks bipartisan support, aims to bring transparency to the ongoing Epstein case by compelling the release of withheld information.
The announcement emerged amid widespread bipartisan concern over the limitations of information concerning Epstein's associates and their activities. Despite the Department of Justice previously unveiling a document cache related to Epstein, legislators and the public alike have voiced dissatisfaction with the extent and scope of these disclosures.
At a recent press conference, Greene and Massie, along with Khanna, vocalized their support for legislation initially proposed by Khanna. This bill, if passed, would force Attorney General Pam Bondi to release the Epstein files in their entirety to the public.
Amid this legislative push, the issue of constitutional immunity surfaced. Citing this rule, both Greene and Massie expressed their preparedness to use their privilege of legislative immunity -- which permits open speech on the House Floor without legal backlash -- to publicly name implicated parties.
In their statements, the representatives underscored the gravity and potential risk involved in naming high-profile individuals linked to the Epstein scandal. Greene highlighted the significant power disparities that could threaten the legal and financial stability of those who come forward against influential figures.
Recent releases by the House Oversight Committee, which consisted of 34,000 pages connected to Epstein, have not met expectations. Massie pointed out that much of this report was redundant and heavily redacted, rendering it ineffective in providing new insights or clarity.
This frustration coincides with actions from Epstein survivors as well. Lisa Phillips, representing a group of abuse survivors, intimated that they might release names themselves if the government continues to fail in its disclosures. This collective sentiment underscores a pervasive demand for accountability and transparency.
Massie's commitment was clear as he discussed a strategy to advance the bill despite current challenges, noting a discharge petition requiring 214 signatures -- just four shy of the target -- to force a vote on the bill.
While some politicians see a path forward in transparency, others dismiss the urgency or legitimacy of the matter. President Donald Trump labeled the ongoing controversy as a mere distraction orchestrated by Democrats, disconnected from his administration's achievements.
Contrasting sharply with Trump's statements, Massie rebuffed the notion of the case as a hoax. He emphasized the authenticity of the survivors' experiences and the injustice of ongoing protection afforded to perpetrators.
The political narrative surrounding the Epstein files splits significantly, with Trump distancing himself from the implications of the disclosures while others in Congress stress the imperative of addressing the victims' truth.
The legislative trajectory remains uncertain, but the proposed bill represents a significant stride towards resolving some of the opacity surrounding the Epstein scandal. With potential revelations on the horizon, the coming weeks could prove pivotal.
The discourse at the congressional level mirrors a larger societal confrontation with issues of power, abuse, and the accountability of high-profile individuals in criminal enterprises.
As Congress navigates these turbulent waters, the world watches, awaiting clear outcomes from a saga that has captured global attention. The decisions made in the upcoming sessions will likely resonate far beyond the halls of Congress, affecting legal precedents, privacy issues, and public trust in political and justice systems.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Letitia James, the Democrat attorney general in the state of New York, is demanding an appeals court restore a $500 million penalty against President Donald Trump that a New York judge created.
It was Arthur Engoron who heard the case in which James alleged Trump and his companies committed fraud.
James, who herself is under investigation now on fraud charges of her own related to alleged lies she submitted on federal mortgage documents, claimed that the companies' actions left behind damages even though testimony during the trial, which went down without a jury, proved those who made loans to Trump were happy with them, they were all paid off, they made money off Trump and would like to do business with him again.
Engoron and James worked together to create the $500 million penalty, and then tried to arrange requirements so that Trump could not appeal. He did, and the appeals court bluntly said the fine violated the U.S. Constitution.
Now, a report in the Epoch Times reveals that James wants that constitutional violation restored.
The report explains she filed a notice of appeal to the New York Supreme Court, confirming she is appealing.
"The brief notice does not spell out arguments from James as to why the appeal should be allowed," the report explained.
It was the New York Appellate Division's First Judicial Department, a branch of the New York Supreme Court, that tossed the penalty in a fractured ruling but left the civil judgment against Trump.
Engoron ruled against Trump in February 2024 and issuing a judgment of more than $460 million, with interest accruing.
Even the appellate judges who thought James' claims of fraud were justified opposed her penalty.
"Justice David Friedman criticized James, saying she was focused on 'political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,'" the report said.
In a surprising turn of events, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has publicly distanced herself from former President Donald Trump, criticizing his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
Greene has called for greater transparency with the Epstein files and criticized Trump for neglecting meetings with Epstein's victims.
Historically a staunch Trump supporter, Greene recently expressed displeasure with Trump's refusal to engage with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. This issue came to a head when she requested that Trump host these victims at the White House—an invitation Trump did not acknowledge.
Joining forces with Reps. Thomas Massie (R-TX) and Ro Khanna (D-CA), Greene co-sponsored legislation to release the Department of Justice's files on Epstein to the public. Despite warnings from the White House deeming support for this legislation as a hostile act, Rep. Greene remained undeterred.
In her conversation with CNN's Manu Raju, Rep. Greene stated, "This isn't a hostile act towards the administration," asserting her commitment to transparency and accountability in the Epstein case.
Greene's advocacy extends to a direct appeal to Trump, encouraging him to reconsider his stance and meet with Epstein's victims to acknowledge their suffering and seek justice.
Amid these calls for action, Trump instead prioritized international relations, meeting with the president of Poland during the crucial period when a dialogue on the Epstein scandal was sought by Greene and others. During this meeting, Trump explicitly dismissed the Epstein files legislation as irrelevant and a distraction from his administration's successes.
Trump equated the ongoing demands for the Epstein files to the controversy surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy, suggesting a pattern of dissatisfaction no matter the extent of disclosures provided.
Following Trump's refusal to meet with the victims, Greene joined a press conference organized by Massie and Khanna, which featured about a dozen Epstein victims sharing their stories.
At the press conference, Greene did not mince words. She criticized the Department of Justice under Trump for its opacity and called for the truth to be revealed by federal agencies, including the FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA.
Her statements at the conference underscored the need for truth and justice, advocating on behalf of the victims. "The FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA hold the truth. And the truth we’re demanding comes out," she declared, emphasizing the significance of transparency.
Highlighting the broader implications, Greene stated, "This should never happen in America, and it should never be a political issue that divides us," marking a notable shift from her typical alignment with Trump's policy positions.
Greene's stance represents a significant departure from her previous unwavering support for Trump, reflecting a broader schism within parts of the Republican Party over issues of justice and transparency.
Such a stance not only brings attention to the Epstein scandal but also pressures other political leaders to take a stand on matters involving high-profile figures and federal transparency.
Her participation and vocal criticism at the press conference illustrate a critical turning point, suggesting that her political alignment might be shifting towards more bipartisan and victim-centered justice initiatives.
Never-before-seen footage from outside Jeffrey Epstein's jail cell has been released after Pam Bondi said the minute of tape went "missing."
While the "missing minute" appears to contain nothing remarkable, it is not yet clear why it was not included with 11 hours of footage the Justice Department released in July to prove that nobody except Epstein entered his cell before he died.
The new video was included with an evidence dump containing over 33,000 pages that the House Oversight Committee shared on Tuesday.
The "missing" footage depicts the common area in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) of Epstein's jail, the Metropolitan Correctional Center.
The new video appears to show Epstein being escorted to a shower stall to make an unmonitored phone call around 7 p.m., CBS reported.
Roughly an hour later, Epstein is seen returning to his cell, although the staircase to his cell block is only partly visible. The "missing minute" from 11:59 p.m. to midnight appears to be uneventful. Epstein was found dead the next morning.
Bondi had previously explained that the video went "missing" because of a routine process at Epstein's jail.
"There was a minute that was off that counter, and what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night, they redo that video," Bondi told reporters. "Every night is reset, so every night should have that same missing minute."
Negligence and other problems within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) have long been cited by the government as factors in Epstein's shocking death.
Epstein was not being monitored properly just before he died, despite a previous suicide attempt at the jail. The government later said it lost surveillance footage from outside his cell during the attempt.
Because of a security camera malfunction, video was only recorded on one surveillance camera inside the Special Housing Unit on the night Epstein died.
Since Attorney General Bill Barr was in charge, the Justice Department has said the limited footage proves that Epstein killed himself, a finding Bondi officially backed in a controversial memo this summer. The DOJ also said there is no evidence that Epstein possessed an incriminating "client list" of powerful figures.
Bondi's conclusions, and the DOJ's refusal to release the complete Epstein files, sparked a right-wing backlash that has largely quieted, although a handful of Republicans have continued to press the issue, joining Democrats who have accused Bondi and President Trump of a nefarious cover-up.
The House Oversight Committee's 33,000-page release has been dismissed by Democrats as a ruse, as most of the material was previously public.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Members of the federal judiciary, in a number of instances since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, have adopted political positions in their rulings.
Judges at the federal court system's entry level, district courts, have claimed the authority to order the nation's international affairs, financial affairs, DEI ideologies, expenditures, and more, many of which fall directly inside the president's responsibilities under the Constitution.
And now they are complaining the Supreme Court "doesn't have our backs."
Anonymously, of course, as one judge, James Boasberg, in Washington, who publicly complained about Trump at a judicial conference now is the subject of an ethics complaint.
It seems judges are supposed to be neutral about issues and individuals in cases before their court, and Boasberg tried to "undermine" the president, who is involved in several cases Boasberg is hearing.
A report at Fox News explained, "A group of anonymous federal judges is criticizing the Supreme Court for overturning lower court rulings and siding with President Donald Trump's administration with little to no explanation."
The report cited NBC interviews with "12 federal judges, appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents including Trump."
They complained to NBC about "a trend of lower court decisions being overturned by emergency rulings from the high court."
Trump administration officials also have been publicly critical of the decisions made by judges who have gone out of their lane, the report said.
Ten of the judges told the Supreme Court the justices should provide more explanation when the district court decisions are reversed.
"They don't have our backs," said one anonymous complainer.
One judge also reported getting death threats for his rulings in opposition to the president's agenda.
And the administration has been critical of those lower court decisions, describing one fight as the result of a "judicial coup."
NBC said one judge who described the Supreme Court's actions as inexcusable claimed, "Somebody is going to die" because of administration criticism.
"It's almost like the Supreme Court is saying it is a 'judicial coup,'" one judge told NBC.
There was one dissenter, a judge appointed by Barack Obama, who admitted multiple judges have been "out of line" with their political agendas in opposition to the president.
"The whole 'Trump derangement syndrome' is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane," that judge said.
One example of the judicial activism at the entry-court level is Boasberg himself.
WND reported recently when Boasberg, who has been virulently anti-Trump for years, ever since he was involved in the scheme to spy on the Trump campaign as part of the Russiagate conspiracy theory from 2016, heard a case of a woman jailed for her deranged social media posts about wanting to kill Trump.
Boasberg decided she shouldn't be in jail, so he ordered her released, with electronic monitoring and a visit to a psychiatrist.
Lately, Boasberg has run an agenda opposing Trump's efforts to secure America's borders and remove illegal alien criminals from U.S. shores, wildly insisting that two jets loaded with those individuals that already were on deportation flights in international airspace to turn around and return the criminals to America, without acknowledging whether the jets even had enough fuel to do that.
The Gateway Pundit explained, "Now this woman has been quietly released by Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg. That would be the same Judge Boasberg who has repeatedly interfered in efforts to deport illegal alien criminals."
Boasberg also has been criticized for publicly suggesting, during a judicial conference, that Trump would not follow his orders and that would create a constitutional crisis.
Attorney General Pam Bondi explained she ordered a complaint filed over the "misconduct" by Boasberg, for "making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration."
"These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary," she confirmed.
A DOJ official confirmed, "Judge Boasberg first tried to persuade Chief Justice Roberts and other federal judges that the Trump administration would not follow court orders, despite having no basis for his belief. Then he acted on his baseless belief again and again in litigation over which he was presiding. Judge Boasberg violated the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, including the requirement that he 'promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'"
WorldNetDaily has reported it was the Federalist that obtained access to comments Boasberg made at a recent judicial conference undermining the president.
He disparaged the president, even though he's required to be neutral on issues and people in his court, where Trump is a defendant in a number of cases brought by activists trying to undermine his agenda for America.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche later described Boasberg as a "threat to the rule of law" for using his own agendas in his court rulings to try to control the decisions of the Executive Branch.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Even as a number of judges at the entry level of the federal court system, the district courts, have complained in anonymous interviews with NBC that they don't like it when the Supreme Court overturns their politically driven decisions, a member of that high court is warning they are supposed to be playing by the rules that already are established – by voters, through Congress and the president.
It was in a series of interviews with federal judges whose identities were concealed that NBC reported they were unhappy that their decisions were not followed by the Supreme Court.
Some of those district court decisions, however, have clearly pushed political agendas in opposition to the president, on things like national security, international affairs, spending, social ideologies, and more. One radical judge even tried to order jets deporting illegal alien criminals turned around mid-flight to return the criminals to the U.S., without an acknowledgement that those jets could have run out of fuel before completing a return.
Now it is Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett who explained judges' personal beliefs should not enter into the equation when decisions are made. Those decisions should be based on the laws that exist.
Those district judges, she said, are "not kings."
She wrote, in an article for the Free Press, that judges are "referees" who determine, or should be determining, that everyone is following the rules.
"We judges don't dispense justice solely as we see it; instead, we're constrained by law adopted through the democratic process," she said.
She said of the judiciary, "Like Americans more generally, judges hold diverse views about the values by which a just society should live. Yet under the Constitution, the choice between these competing views is made by citizens in the democratic process, not by judges settling disputes.
"On the bench, we must suppress our individual beliefs in deference to those that have prevailed in the enacted law. Our job is to protect the choices that citizens have made, even when we disagree with them…"
Judges should be deciding "whether people have played by the rules rather than what the rules should be."
She cited her own personal objections to the death penalty.
"For me, death penalty cases drive home the collision between the law and my personal beliefs. Long before I was a judge – before I was even a member of the bar – I co-authored an academic article expressing a moral objection to capital punishment," she said. "Because prisoners sentenced to death almost always challenge their sentences on appeal, the tension between my beliefs and the law is not one that I could avoid as a young law clerk, much less now as a judge.
"The people who adopted the Constitution didn't share my view of the death penalty, and neither do all my fellow citizens today," she added "If I distort the law to make it difficult for them to impose the death penalty, I interfere with the voters' right to self-government."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve board governor ordered fired by President Donald Trump, has been put under formal investigation by the Department of Justice over allegations she committed fraud on mortgage papers.
She's one among several prominent Democrats facing the same or similar counts: For claiming that multiple homes all are "primary" residences, which qualify for better mortgage interest rates.
The others so far identified to have allegedly committed such offenses are New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose "fraud" case against Trump's companies has mostly died, and anti-Trump Russiagate hoaxer Adam Schiff, now a senator from California.
According to the Daily Mail, Attorney General Pam Bondi's Justice Department issued subpoenas on Thursday regarding information about Cook and her mortgage paperwork.
It's not the only legal fight she's in, as instead of departing her position when Trump fired her for "cause," she sued to keep her job.
The focus is on Cook's properties in Michigan and Georgia.
Last month, Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance director, alleged Cook engaged in mortgage fraud, sending a referral to the DOJ.
Among the complications is that Trump has for months been trying to have the Federal Reserve lower interest rates for American consumers, but has been handed only resistance from chairman Jerome Powell and others on the board.
The irony is that Cook is accused of cheating to lower her own interest rates while voting to keep interest rates for consumers high.
Trump already has replaced one board member, and if Cook is removed, he would be able to gain influence through another appointee.
"Once we have a majority, housing is going to swing, and it's going to be great," Trump has explained. "People are paying too high an interest rate. That's the only problem with us. We have to get the rates down a little bit."
In fact, interest rates exploded to more than 9% under Joe Biden. Mortgage rates have since receded, but still remain, in Trump's opinion, far too high.
A report at the Gateway Pundit noted, "Lisa Cook allegedly committed occupancy fraud (and perhaps tax fraud) on all three of her properties. According to Federal Housing Director Bill Pulte's first criminal referral to the DOJ, Lisa Cook committed mortgage fraud by lying on her mortgage application and falsifying bank statements when she designated her out-of-state Atlanta condo as her 'primary residence' — just two weeks after taking a loan on her Ann Arbor, Michigan home, which she also claimed as her 'primary residence.'"
A followup referral from Pulte concerns Cook's third home, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a situation in California, a teacher at Cal State Channel Island has been indicted for assaulting U.S. Border Patrol agents with a deadly or dangerous weapon – a tear gas canister.
And a constitutional expert, Jonathan Turley, points out it appears to be just the latest scenario in which professors have gone ballistic, and beyond what the law allows.
The Los Angeles Times reported the federal grand jury returned an indictment of Jonathan Caravello, 37, of Ventura, on a felony count of assault "after he was arrested at a protest against an immigration raid at a Ventura County marijuana farm."
The raids are part of President Donald Trump's agenda to secure America's borders and crack down on illegal aliens who entered, by the millions, under the tenure of Joe Biden.
In fact, there even were gang members and terrorists allowed into the U.S. under Biden's practices.
"Prosecutors say that agents deployed the tear gas as a crowd control measure during the July 10 protest and that Caravello picked up a canister and lobbed it back at officers. If convicted as charged, he faces up to 20 years in federal prison," the report explained.
The fight developed as protesters confronted federal agents enforcing the law at Glass House Farms' marijuana grow site in Camarillo.
The immigration enforcement action resulted in the arrests of more than 300 illegal alien workers.
The Department of Homeland Security said one worker died after falling from a greenhouse roof while trying to escape from federal agents.
Protesters by the hundreds gathered at the site, and allegedly impeded federal law enforcement, also throwing rocks at government vehicles.
Prosecutors said the tear gas was used, "For agents' safety."
Caravello allegedly chased a tear gas canister that rolled past him and threw it back at Border Patrol agents.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley pointed out that authorities during their operation found at least 14 child workers there.
And he noted Caravello was defended by faculty at his school.
"The night before he was arrested, Caravello spoke at a city of Camarillo council meeting and declared that he was 'patrolling the city streets following armed masked thugs trying to kidnap my [undocumented] neighbors,'" Turley wrote.
"The California Faculty Association (CFA) claimed Professor Caravello was 'kidnapped' in a reel on Instagram: 'Four masked agents dragged Jonathan away into an unmarked car without identifying themselves, without giving the reason for arrest, and without disclosing where they are taking him,'" he noted.
"This is not the first time that faculty have rallied around faculty who have allegedly taken violent action during protests. At the University of California, Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was not fired and received overwhelming support from the students and faculty. She was later honored as a model for women advocates."
And, Turley noted, "At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students. She was captured on a videotape telling the students that 'you're not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You're triggering my students.'"
He noted Hunter College didn't consider the violence sufficient reason to fire her, and only did so later when she chased reporters with a machete.
A woman who threatened to kill President Trump was released from jail by a notorious liberal judge in Washington D.C.
James Boasberg became widely known earlier this year for ordering President Trump to turn back deportation flights carrying alleged gang members.
In another stunning move, Boasberg decided to cut loose a mentally disturbed woman who traveled to the nation's capital to "sacrificially kill" Trump, Law & Crime reported.
The 50-year-old, Nathalie Rose Jones, had been denied bond by a different judge who was alarmed by her persistent threats, which culminated in Jones driving more than 200 miles from her residence in New York City to the White House.
Boasberg felt that it was a case of a troubled, but harmless woman without any practical means of executing her plan.
"If she had a gun with her this case is easy," Boasberg said, according to local CBS affiliate WUSA. "But the question is, why shouldn't we consider this the rantings of someone with a mental illness with no ability to carry this out?"
The judge ordered Jones, who reportedly has schizophrenia, to get psychiatric help and undergo electronic monitoring in New York, where she lives.
Jones had shared a series of graphic social media posts last month calling Trump a dictator and blaming him for lives lost to COVID-19.
“I literally told FBI in five states today that I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation present,” she wrote in one post.
In an interview with the Secret Service, Jones said she would kill Trump if given the chance, specifically by using a "bladed object."
Several of her posts had troubling militaristic overtones, the Justice Department noted. In one of them, she urged Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to remove Trump by force.
The Justice Department had urged Boasberg to keep Jones behind bars, pointing to her repeated public threats and the effort she made to carry them out by traveling to the nation's capital.
"Defendant is the exact type of person that should be detained pending trial. She displays a penchant for violence, as displayed through her threats towards the POTUS. She does not care about the consequences of her statements and actions, as shown by her brazen decision to drive to Washington, DC, the day after telling law enforcement she would take the POTUS's life. And she has mental health issues, which could affect her ability to exhibit self-control or cause her to discount the dangerousness of her actions going forward," the DOJ wrote.
These arguments failed to move Boasberg, who reversed the ruling of US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya that called for Jones to receive a competency evaluation from jail.
The prosecution's case suffered another blow Monday when a grand jury refused to charge Jones.
It is exceedingly rare for grand juries to decline criminal charges, but grand juries in D.C. have blocked several cases from being brought since Trump took over the crime-plagued capital in August. The unusual pattern has led to speculation that grand jurors in the liberal city are using their role in the justice system to send a political message.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro condemned the grand jury's move as proof that the justice system in D.C. has been corrupted by politics.
“The system here is broken on many levels,” Pirro said in a statement. “Instead of the outrage that should be engendered by a specific threat to kill the president, the grand jury in DC refuses to even let the judicial process begin. Justice should not depend on politics.”